Ted Rall for September 21, 2009

This is supposed to say something !?

Yeah, Ted. I don’t get it.

From cannon fodder to lawn fodder…very creative!

Each generation of soldier must die to justify the meaningless war (and deaths) that came before.

The tree of liberty is fertilized with the mulch of patriots…

there’s been a long discussion on the “poor condition” of the National Mall, and the lack of NPS funding to maintain, or repair things. Methinks Rall is offering an example of how all the war memorials might be maintained.

Sooky Rottweiler says; Reminds me of my human’s mother. She freaks out if I poop in her garden flowers, but buys sheep poop as fertilizer. Beebee’s human, an old man, buys anti-daisy pesticides then buys greenhouse daisies to replace them…

Can anybody get me a book called “Understanding dummies for dogs”? It must be near “Understanding dogs for dummies”.

Ps, want to know the worst part about the expensive greenhouse daisies story? My human bought some!

Today’s strip failed on multiple levels. Not only was it in bad taste, but it wasn’t even humorous or insightful. Mulching dead soldiers? Way to push that envelope, Ted!

scott: Miley Cyrus? Well, that gives us a clue about your age.

ted: I did not know about the condition of the lawn, though it makes perfect sense given the lack of funding. However, while I appreciate the sentiment of the cartoon – that the soldier have died for nothing – I have to admit this one did not work for me.

scot, your Islamophobia is becoming hysterical.. take my advice and go check yourself..

Sooky Rottweiler says; Yeah, expand your mind, scotty! I don’t like chihuahuas, but my human says I shouldn’t hate a dog just because he’s a chihuahua! Same with cats; they have claws, but they are not all the same.

As someone who escaped being cannon fodder, it hit home.

Being on the agent orange register (with some physical problems therefrom-+ other stuff 100% disabled with VA) with a son about to get disability retirement from the Navy after “playing” in Bosnia, Iraq and elsewhere, putting his “liberal” buttocks on the line, giving him the right to call “neocons” “Nazis”(expletive part deleted). Some of the nut cases claiming only libertarians (Bush and Cheney sure didn’t show up) put it on the line for our country- I’m getting more than fed up with the charge from those with only data from Faux news, and other cowards, with loud mouths and weak minds, like, well, chubby Limbaugh.

Ted has it right, they’re great at starting endless new wars, as long as THEY DON’T have to fight them.

^ and with this war, Bush and Cheney found new ways to give their friends massive taxpayer-funded gifts …. has any other war seen the sort of no-bid, cost-plus (with the contractor defining “costs) contracts to one contractor and its subsidiaries?

Ted, some of your readers not only don’t keep up with news, they know nothing about history

Hard truth folks. Our soldiers are the best trained, most dedicated and selfless cannon fodder in the world. I stand in awe of them, and yet, they are treated like lawn fertilizer by our politicians that send them to useless wars (that means you Bama) without proper equipment (you Rumsfailed).

Such dedication and sacrifice should only be employed in only absolutely necessary circumstances.

9-11 was not that time. It was an inside job, if not in fact engineered by the shadow government, at least allowed to happen so that the no bid money profiteers could enrich themselves at the cost of young American lives. That is a crime as great if not greater than any Islamic attack on us.

By the way, for you dumb ones out there, Rall employs IRONY.

I’m sure the poppy fields of Afghanistan were in fine condition this year. How’s that for irony?

Rall you’re too young to remember an anti-war (in Viet Nam) song that sang, in part

where have all the flowers gone young girls picked them, every one

where have all th young girls gone married young men, every one

where have all the young men gone gone for soldiers, every one

where have the soldiers gone gone to grave yards, every one

where have all the grave yards gone gone to flowers every one

when will they ever learn

i guess your toon reminded me - it’s a pretty true, sad cycle any way you say it

Parker, I think “Where Have All the Flowers Gone” predates even the Vietnam War.

Apparently it comes from a Ukrainian folk song mentioned in ‘And Quiet Flows the Don’ by Mikhail Sholokhov published around 1928. Seems like some things never change.

Where have all the flowers gone is a song from The Great War isn’t it? That war to end all wars that also had a sequel? We use to sing that song at Remembrance Day assemblies (Vancouver, BC) in elementary school.

My favourite anti-war books: -All Quiet on the Western Front (great movie too, one of the few great adaptations of a novel that worked) -Catch-22 -The Journal of Albion Moonlight -Homage to Catalonia

Please add your favourites to this list!

My favourite anti-war poem is still:

We soldiers of all nations who lie killed Ask little: that you never, in our name, Dare claim we died that men might be fulfilled. The earth should vomit us, against that shame. We died; is that enough? Many died well, Of both sides; most of us died senselessly. Ask soldiers who outlived us; they may tell How many died to make men slaves, or free. We died. None knew, few tried to guess just why. No one knows now, on either side of the grave. If you insist you know, by all means try, That being your trade, to make the knowledge save. But never use, not as you honor sorrow, Our murdered days to garnish your tomorrow.

James Agee [1945]

^ thank you for sharing that … an excellent poem.

Excellent contribution bikerusl.

Less germane to this conversation but still one of my favorite anti war poems:

Dulce Et Decorum Est

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind.

Gas! Gas! Quick, boys! – An ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling, And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime … Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light, As under a green sea, I saw him drowning. In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, My friend, you would not tell with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est Pro patria mori.

Wilfred Owen (1918)

Incidentally, I believe what Rall is saying here is that “mulching” our soldiers is little different sending them to die in a pointless, misdirected war.

Scottfreitas: others might point out that while we should defend our country, we were attacked by Al Qaeda, not by Afghanistan or Iraq.

Great cartoon, Ted. I like the deliberate ugliness in your drawing style.

Thanks for mentioning the Depleted Uranium. Talking to people who weren’t born at the time, they don’t know depleted uranium was used to ‘improve’ the 30mm cannon rounds for the A-10 Thunderbolt (Warthog). One of the few things that would save us from the Warsaw Pact steamroller.

When they started using the A-10s in Desert Storm, it didn’t ring a bell with me at first. Depleted Uranium: the best thing since Agent Orange! Guarantueed to last a millennium…

“This stuff falls flat when our military is all volunteer.

“All it does is call them stupid. What intelligent person would sign up for a ‘senseless’ death in a ‘meaningless’ war?”

If they knew that the war they were signing up for was meaningless and that their death would be meaningless, yes I would argue that this is evidence of a lack of…not intelligence, perhaps, but foresight.

A volunteer enlisting in the military has no ability to choose the combat which he may end up facing. After 9/11, many men and women volunteered to help “get” the ones who “did this to us.” An admirable, patriotic, and brave thing to do, for sure. But where were they sent?

1: Iraq. Nothing at all to do with 9/11. Not a threat to U.S. soil. Every U.S. soldier who has died there has died a senseless and meaningless death.

2: Afghanistan. Peripherally involved in 9/11, at least in the sense that the non-governmental planners of the WTC attack were being sheltered there. But there’s no objective, no exit strategy. What the hell are we doing there?

Pat Tillman gave up an NFL career to enlist following the WTC attacks. He was killed by friendly fire, which the Army then covered up. What meaning did his death have?

Again, once you sign up you have no choice but to go where they send you. The responsibility lies with those in decision-making positions, true, having volunteered you’ve placed yourself in that position.

it’s hard to see through the tears you guys - when it starts coming back there’s no stopping the flood

matter of how we see it, i guess, but i would never tell a soldier that her life was given in vain or tell another that he died for nothing. they did exactly what the commander in chief demanded of them and what they did, in that case, was honorable

it’s bush’s albatross - and he’ll carry it around his neck forever

It may be something he carries with him but it does not mean that he feels remorse over his actions.

Until that S.O.B. is in jail justice for those that died in a senseless war (along with those innocent Iraqis that had nothing to do with this war other than being sitting ducks) will be for nothing!

Ted, I read your cartoons so I don’t HAVE to read the news.

When you erroneously step on the head of a snake, do you remove your foot?

Ted, one has to acknowledge that getting out of any war is not that easy either.

It would have been better not to have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan of course.

Ironically, had there been a massive amount of forces, theoretically speaking, war would be resolved without firing a single shot.

But to avoid more unnecessary wars, the draft should be restored. But if the draft is not restored, then soldiers must have a say through a democratic vote, if most opine they should go then they go, otherwise they send the men behind the desks who have never served.

edmondd, I think the idea of polling the soldiers on whether a war is worth fighting is a better idea if the draft IS reinstated.

One thing charlie has right is that, in an all volunteer Army, soldiers have voluntarily given up having any say in the matter. They chose to put themselves in the position of mandatory compliance with the chain of command. But to perform well in an unjust war is hardly “honorable”, I think. A German foot soldier in WWII may not have shared the ideology of his commanders, but he is still fighting for the Wrong Side. Have you seen “Inglourious Basterds”? there’s a young German who is hailed as a Hero of the Folk for having killed 300 or so Allied soldiers from a sniper tower. What that highly competent soldiering? Yes it was. Was it brave and remarkable? Yes it was. He committed no war crimes or atrocities, just engaged the Enemy (i.e. us) to the best of his ability. It was heroic individual action in an evil cause. After the Nuremburg trials, it has become axiomatic that “I was just following orders” is insufficient in terms of absolving underlings from the responsibility for the lives they take.

In the book “Corelli’s Mandolin”, the highest praise Captain Corelli gives of one of his men is “He has many medals for saving lives, and none for taking them.” Would it were always so.

In 1984, I enlisted in the infantry (11-Charlie, mortars). I was honorably discharged prior to the completion of my enlistment, but had I stayed in might well have been sent to Panama. Before my Reserve commitment ended, I might have been sent to Iraq. If I had lost an arm or an eye in either theater, or been exposed to depleted uranium ordnance and developed radiation sickness, I would now be looking back and saying “Boy, was I stupid to get myself in this position.” If I had died, of course, I would not be in a position to look back on anything.

My own favorite anti-war song, since we’re posting them:

On the side of a hill, in a land called Somewhere, A little boy lies asleep in the earth, While down in the valley a cruel war rages, And people forget what a child’s life is worth.

On the side of a hill, a little cloud weeps And waters the grave with its silent tears, While a soldier cleans and polishes a gun That ended a life at the age of seven years.

And the war rages on in a land called Somewhere, And generals order their men to kill, And to fight for a cause they’ve long ago forgotten While a little cloud weeps On the side of a hill.

– Paul Simon (portions of this song were later worked into the “Canticle” lyrics behind “Scarborough Fair”)

“If a war were truly necessary, it would be so politically popular that you wouldn’t need a draft or a volunteer standing army of poor mercenaries. Ordinary Americans would rush to recruiting stations to defend their country.”

Not sure I entirely agree; one could argue that it should not have taken Pearl Harbor to convince the average American that intervening in WWII would be a Good Thing.

And of course, even if your premise IS correct, it does not follow that all popular wars are necessary. People in England, Germany, France, and the U.S. were itching to start shooting at each other in 1914 (although the Americans wouldn’t get to join the fun until 1917). The Great War, the War to End All Wars, was completely unnecessary, solved nothing, and set the stage for a sequel which was, alas, ENTIRELY necessary.

My own idea for killing two birds with one stone (not that I’m advocating indiscriminate bird-killing) would be to reorganize the Armed Forces along the Swiss model (modified).

Reduce the standing army to a skeleton, but expand the reserves and the National Guard. Unlike the Swiss, no individual would be required to maintain combat arms in their home, but anyone (male or female, young or old) who wanted to own any sort of firearm would be required to report regularly for military training. You want to own a hunting rifle? FIne. Make yourself available for national service. A Saturday Night Special? Same deal.

There would be mandatory, generalized safety training for whatever type of gun you own (as well as training in combat weaponry), discipline, command structure…

In the event of a true national emergency (i.e. an actual invasion of our soil), it would be easy to mobilize an effective response at a local level, but if the politicians decide they want to send troops overseas it’ll be difficult (as it should be; we must not intervene elsewhere without great cause). Those troops which are called to report would already be trained in soldiering, so our initial casualties (which has traditionally been a big problem, when we’ve had to rely on large numbers of fresh recruits) might be lower. Having to pluck citizen soldiers from their regular lives every time we want to stick our noses into somebody else’s business might make the Brass think twice; one of the biggest reasons for the unpopularity of Bush’s wars has been the extended disruption to the lives of reservists. If the vast MAJORITY of our soldiers were in that position, the impetus to get in and get out as quickly as possible would be hard to ignore.

So if you want to own a gun, fine, but under my system you’d have to make yourself available for a “well-regulated militia”, which seems to me what the Framers had in mind.

RV, I believe you’re mistaking his point, at least with regards to (1).

His statement “If a war were…necessary, it would be…popular” does not logically lead to “Popularity makes right.” Ted’s position is “Right (necessity) makes (would make) popularity.”

“If A ,then B” does not lead to “If B, then A”, but it DOES lead to “If not B, then not A.” So the contrapositive inference of Ted’s position would be “If a war is not popular, it cannot be necessary”, with which, as I’ve stated, I don’t agree myself.

Ted is right. At the onset of WW II Americans did rush to enlist. Just found a letter of my dad’s lamenting his 4-f status when his brother went with him to enlist. My uncle and father-in-law were probably within a few hundred yards of each other at the Battle of the Bulge, both were tank commanders, both wounded.

I find it interesting, considering the oft repeated charge against liberals, that my right-wing brother, like Cheney, thought enlisting was “beneath him”. I, and my son, are the “libs” who’ve served this country in the military, both now disabled as a result of service, and proud we did serve, but quite unhappy with the “conservatives” who wage wars so poorly, and without true popular support. Remember, it was Nixon who prolonged Viet Nam, for longer than Johnson(who WAS wrong!).

I would like to retract or at least revise my early post. While reading the cartoon alone did not really do much for me, that is my shallowness perhaps. Reading the comments has been medicine. As I read them, the art of the cartoon became much clearer - like having an optical illusion pointed out, and then you can’t imagine why you didn’t see it before.

Whether it was immediately obvious or not, the fact that we treat human beings like fertilizer (Soylent Green came to mind), means that we have much to ponder in our souls. I wish I could express it half as well as so many of you have.

Total control over France (as opposed to the disputed regions) was never my understanding of the German goal at the outset, but I could be mistaken. Bismarck’s vision of a strong, unified Germany in the mid-late 1800’s was largely driven by his fear that FRANCE would try to take over Europe again, as it had done twice (I think) within what was then recent memory. Franco-German relations have NEVER been cordial, and the Germans have not ALWAYS been the aggressors.

But it’s been a long time since I’ve done any reading in this area, so I’m not going to press the issue any further.

“Recognize, you don’t live in the Shire, you live in Mordor, go forward from there.”

The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Shire of Mordor, a Mordor of the Shire.

Not one or the other, but neither, or both. If you believe you live in Mordor, and act accordingly, that is where you will stay. Likewise the Shire. Better to light a single candle, be the change you wish to see in the world, nil illegitimo in desperandum carborundum, and all kinda stuff like that. In the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.

The Cynic looks at the world and sees cruelty and stupidity everywhere, but the WISE Cynic knows the first step towards improving matters is not to be cruel and stupid oneself.

An aside: John Hart, who played the Lone Ranger on TV for some time (Clayton Moore was in a contract dispute) has died. I’ve always had a soft spot for the Lone Ranger. He’s the Good Guy. There’s a time for moral ambiguity, for anti-heroes, but there’s always a spot to be filled by Purity of Heart. If you HAVE to shoot somebody, shoot ‘em in the wrist. Sometimes, the Good Guy’s greatest victory is staying the Good Guy (sometimes it’s his ONLY victory). Play by the rules, even if your opponent is cheating.

In Grail myth (at least T.H. White’s telling), there were three Knights of the Round Table who were allowed to find the Holy Grail. Galahad, who was pure because he was perfectly righteous; Parsival, who was pure because he was perfectly innocent; and Bors, who was not perfectly anything, except perhaps repentant. Bors had been sinful and worldly (in short, your average courtly knight) earlier in life, but turned to the study and practice of Virtue later on. He changed himself for the better. He overcame his baseness.

It can be done on an individual level. If ENOUGH individuals choose peace, love, and understanding (and what’s so funny about peace, love, and understanding?), perhaps the balance will shift and we can make the world a better, safer, happier place for EVERYONE.

For the sake of argument, to the extent that it IS Mordor, how would you suggest one “deal with it”? By accepting it and adapting to prevailing standards (“When in Rome…”), or by working to change it? It is within our power to change the world, and it is our responsibility to try. No individual can do EVERYTHING, but he/she/you/I can do SOMETHING, and enough “somethings” will add up to “everything.”

Be an example, if nothing else. You might convince two other people before your strength gives out, who each convince two people, who convince two people…

Rent some old Frank Capra movies. They aren’t as rose-colored as they have a reputation for being; there are people who are realistically sh!tty in them, and the path of the hero is not easy. The endings are often rather ambiguous in terms of what has been accomplished. But they’re “inspirational” nonetheless.

My prescription, watch “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, “Meet John Doe”, “You Can’t Take It With You”, and “Mr. Deeds Goes to Town”; try to watch at least three of the four in rapid succession (maybe one each night for three nights). It can’t hurt.

RV, I used “for the sake of argument” in its idiomatic sense of “I will assume for the moment that your statement is true, and proceed from there” As I’ve made clear, I do NOT agree that we live in Mordor. I think that is an overly pessimistic view of what I acknowledge are deeply troubling aspects of U.S. foreign policy.

It was not my attempt to build a straw man, but to present, as I saw it (which of course may not have been how you meant it), the options of “dealing with” living in such a state.

It would seem to me that we are pointing in the same direction (with a notable exception, stated below), but with vastly different ideas of how to get there. Advances in communications technology have made many things possible which were unthinkable 50 years ago, that’s true, but those possible “things” have been both good and bad. We no longer have any reasonable expectation of privacy, because these methods of speed-of-light communication can be easily monitored. They ARE being monitored, both within the limits of what is “legal” and outside those limits. Our spending habits are monitored and tabulated and analyzed to “better serve us.” Our medical records, our legal records, our credit records… The technology used to safeguard this information from those who would abuse it is always two steps behind the ingenuity of those who want to find it.

And of course, communications are not the same as resources. In an earlier thread you said something along the lines of “We in the United States aren’t running out of drinkable water, it’s a danger only to more arid nations. We have the Great Lakes, replenished by rainfall, which meets all our needs” (if I’m misrepresenting you, I apologize, but again this is how I understood your statement, not necessarily how you meant it). To the extent that Great Lakes are drinkable, which is arguable even if they DON’T get any worse, (A) how do you propose we deliver this water to, say, Las Vegas or the California desert, and (B) if the other, more arid portions of the world lack drinking water, what good will it do to give them Skype accounts?

Frankly, in both this discussion and that other, it seems to me (again, it seems) that you are counting on the next generation of technology to “fix” the problems of our current technology. We do not yet know how we’re going to provide power to keep the world’s industry going at present levels for much longer. In another thread, someone (maybe you?) pointed out that X number of years ago the U.S. consumed 50% of the world’s energy output and China consumed nearly 0%, but now the U.S. consumes 30% while China consumes 50% (or whatever the numbers cited were). The drop of our percentage was not caused by any reduction in our usage, but by the rise of others.

Finally, it once again seems to me that you are simultaneously saying “The ‘American Way’ is the equivalent of Mordor”, and “Let’s bring our gifts to the world!” It is American levels of consumption that have, at least in part, necessitated our aggressive actions in the oil-producing regions. We want everything, and we want it cheap, and we’re going to want a NEW one on the shelves in time for the next Christmas shopping season. The two, the drive to be moving “aggressively forward”, and our constant search for OTHER PEOPLE’S natural resources, are inseparable.

Notable exception mentioned above: “But like everyone else, I want it to be a world where I’m privleged and if others can be similarly privileged, then that’s fine with me.” My quibble is with the word “privileged”; I feel no need to be privileged, above the level that everyone ELSE is privileged. If I have “enough” (however you define that), I’m not especially driven to have “more than enough” while others have “not enough.” Do I give away every available penny, once I’ve taken care of food, shelter, and clothing? No, I indulge myself from time to time, but I do what I can when I can to help those who have genuine need of what I consider my surplus.

“You said we a re running out of water and I said no we’re not.”

The disagreement here seems to be in the definition of “we.” The water in our Great Lakes is of little use to the rest of the world. If it can’t be transported where it’s needed, it is of little benefit other than to the locals. It isn’t merely a question of who’s going to develop the transportation technology or who’s going to pay for it (or profit from it). What about the environmental impact of huge pipelines criss-crossing the globe? Animal migration, loss of habitat, changed weather patterns, and AGAIN the cost (in natural resources as well as capital) of an engineering project of that scale.

“Why not harvest the power of lightening? Did you know there is enough solid methane off the coast of Equador(?) to fuel the plant for longer than all the current proven coal reserves? ”

Should we research harvesting atmospheric electricity? Sure. But what would be the environmental impact of large-scale use? IS it safe? Is it reliable? Burning methane, like any solid fuel, raises atmospheric temperatures, does it not? The use of household appliances generates heat. Where does it go? Raising the technological level of a large portion of society, as I’ve said before, generates a lot of waste, some in the form of toxic chemicals, some is just TRASH. Even the best recycling programs at this point are nowhere near at a sustainable level of efficiency to satisfy PRESENT demand, let alone if we get the rest of the world living “the American Dream.”

“Your history of American meddling is both too short and too narrow.”

It was not meant to be all-inclusive. But imposing a technologically-based lifestyle on cultures which do not want one is, it seems to me, as presumptuous as imposing puppet governments who answer to Langley, VA. For some people, “quality of life” has little to do with global connectivity or labor-saving devices, and much to do with stability, tranquility, and tradition.

If, as we agree, ethnocentrism is a fundamental problem that ought to/must be conquered, I ask again if you are proposing the effacement of all cultural distinctions? It seems to me that our Western European mindset is largely what PUT us in the awkward position we’re in now, this “aggressively forward” motion that you’re “not sure” isn’t “best.” Let’s slow down. Lets make sure that increasing the industrialization of the planet, REGARDLESS of whether someone makes any money off it, isn’t going to make matters WORSE.

“Popping off laundry lists of problems” is not an attempt to limit areas of investigation, but an attempt to be clear-sighted about what will define an acceptable solution. Let’s figure out how to avoid the problems we CAN anticipate (because we’re already experiencing them) before rushing to others we know not of. Thus conscience does make cowards of us all, I suppose. But again, it appears we agree on the general direction but disagree as to the pace.

“As to “Privilege”, bullsnot! Even hippie pop good timer Paul Simon wrote “I’d rather be the hammer than the nail” I’d like it if the One World were based on the goodness of the American Ideal, as opposed to the heel of a Mussolini boot.

“I have no problem with everybody being just as free as I.

“As to who gets what, I have no problem with people getting more for being more. I think that all can have enough while still others have more.”

General agreement here, but I DON’T want to be a hammer, if someone else must be a nail. I do not want my “privileges” to come at the expense of someone else. Once we DO get enough for all, then we can worry about how to distribute the surplus.

Bikerusi, you might want to consider adding to your list of favourite anti-war books what is to my mind, the greatest novel ever written - Osudy dobrého vojáka Švejka za světové války (The adventures of the good soldier Švejk in the World War) by Jaroslav Hašek. Alas, the last English translation I read - many, many years ago - was pedestrian at best, but perhaps better ones have since appeared….

Whitenoise, it might interest you to learn that Bertolt Brecht was relegated from school for writing an essay pointing out that Horatius - who penned those lines, «Dolce et decomum est/ pro Patria mori» - that Wilfred Owen so accurately termed a «lie»had studiously avoided serving in any of the many Roman wars of his time….

Henri